Author Topic: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine  (Read 1149540 times)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #280 on: 05/15/2017 05:51 am »
Clearly some powerpack hardware failed in a non-repairable way (hence the 'lost' and reassurrance of being 'hardware rich'). The reference to being back into testing soon is encouraging - hopefully it means Blue don't believe there's a difficult/complex investigation to be done before testing can resume (although 'soon' could still mean months I guess).

I would imagine "soon" also depends on what they think caused the problem.  Hopefully this was a test of what they thought the limits were, or an understandable failure of some kind.

I do like how they are "hardware rich" though, because that tells me they are OK with breaking things...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Chasm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #281 on: 05/15/2017 06:17 am »
Lost is nicely vague. Covers everything from widely distributed engine and test stand confetti down to a problem that got caught in time to shut down safely but leaves the powerpack (or complete engine) inoperable / a specimen for the materials lab.

Since they are still deep in development and verification I suppose that all test articles are heavily instrumented. So catching problems is possible, esp. if they had a few successful runs to compare to.


Was this the first run for the powerpack? 2nd? 20th?
During normal operation or while verifying characteristics?
"This should work" vs. "This is unlikely to work, but we need to verify limits."
Maybe we'll find out in the future.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #282 on: 05/15/2017 01:44 pm »
More important than the "lost" powerpack is the condition of the test stand. 

 - Ed Kyle

Online LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6111
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #283 on: 05/15/2017 02:22 pm »
Quote
Blue Origin‏ @blueorigin 3m3 minutes ago

We lost a set of powerpack test hardware on one of our BE-4 test stands yesterday. Not unusual during development.

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/863881495169048576

Not unusual seems an understatement. For example, from Characteristics of Space Shuttle Main Engine failures
Quote
During development and operation of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), 27 ground test failures of sufficient severity to be termed 'major incident' have occurred.
Has an engine *ever* been developed without destroying itself several times on the test stand?  "Normal" or "Expected" might be more honest than "Not unusual".

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #284 on: 05/15/2017 02:31 pm »
Has an engine *ever* been developed without destroying itself several times on the test stand?  "Normal" or "Expected" might be more honest than "Not unusual".
Probably not.  During Tom Mueller's recent interview he mentioned blowing up a lot of Merlin 1D engines during development, and that is a "simple" gas generator cycle.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #285 on: 05/15/2017 02:48 pm »
AIUI, may be the RS-68 didn't had this sort of failures? I can't think of any high performance and successful engine that didn't had a few martyrs in the name of performance. The big question is if this failure was due to envelop exploration or normal condition. And the test stand status, too. But I'm assuming they had a couple of cells and this was not an RD-170 moment.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #286 on: 05/15/2017 03:23 pm »
Has an engine *ever* been developed without destroying itself several times on the test stand?..
Probably a few, XRS-2200 and  J-2X come to mind quickly
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #287 on: 05/15/2017 03:30 pm »
During Tom Mueller's recent interview he mentioned blowing up a lot of Merlin 1D engines during development
Makes perfect sense if one is doing a "face shutoff" at the injector.

And in some ways close to what this test is likely experiencing.

AIUI, may be the RS-68 didn't had this sort of failures?

I don't remember a similar case with it. RS68 was supposed to be cheap/easy/fast (like FBC?) by avoiding RS25's SC nightmares. Also, IIRC Fastrac and M-1A didn't have much like this.

Quote
I can't think of any high performance and successful engine that didn't had a few martyrs in the name of performance.
"The bigger they are, the harder they fall."

Quote
The big question is if this failure was due to envelop exploration or normal condition.
Have they achieved "start up" sequencing? Burp test? Short run?

Suggest far away from either of your two here.

Quote
And the test stand status, too.
Test stands.

Quote
But I'm assuming they had a couple of cells and this was not an RD-170 moment.
Heh. Ouch.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3113
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #289 on: 05/16/2017 02:50 am »
Has an engine *ever* been developed without destroying itself several times on the test stand?  "Normal" or "Expected" might be more honest than "Not unusual".
Probably not.  During Tom Mueller's recent interview he mentioned blowing up a lot of Merlin 1D engines during development, and that is a "simple" gas generator cycle.

 - Ed Kyle

And SpaceX wasn't trying to sell their engine to ULA.  Internal project for internal needs.

With ULA waiting perhaps they had to say something publicly.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #290 on: 05/23/2017 04:57 pm »
Has an engine *ever* been developed without destroying itself several times on the test stand?  "Normal" or "Expected" might be more honest than "Not unusual".
Probably not.  During Tom Mueller's recent interview he mentioned blowing up a lot of Merlin 1D engines during development, and that is a "simple" gas generator cycle.

 - Ed Kyle
1D? not 1A?

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #291 on: 05/23/2017 05:01 pm »
1D

Offline jg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #292 on: 05/27/2017 10:34 pm »
1D
The valving was unusual for an engine that big.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #293 on: 06/07/2017 08:10 am »
Air Force Moving Forward After Blue Origin 'Setback'

Quote
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Air Force said Monday it is working to "figure out how to progress forward" after a setback in the development of a U.S.-made rocket engine.

Blue Origin, Amazon (AMZN) founder Jeff Bezos' space company, tweeted May 14 that it lost a "set of powerpack test hardware on one of its BE-4" engine tests. The powerpack pumps the propellant, liquid oxygen and methane, through the engine. The company said it would resume testing "soon."

Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, military deputy in Air Force acquisition, pointed out that the Air Force has agreements with both Blue Origin and Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJRD) to build a replacement for the Russian-made RD-180 engine.

"We are working with Space and Missile Center to figure out how to progress forward," Bunch told reporters at an Air Force Association breakfast Monday. "We are aware of the Blue Origin setback and we are in dialogue on how to more forward. It is one we are watching because we know the commitment we made to get off of the 180 as quickly as possible."

http://www.investors.com/news/air-force-moving-forward-after-setback-in-plans-end-russian-rocket-engine-use/

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #294 on: 06/09/2017 05:35 pm »
From the standpoint of the AF it is about who gets what additional funding in out years FY2018/19/20. Not which engine that they want ULA to use on Vulcan. The AF just wants to make sure that there is a fallback position to the front runner having serious problems that severely the delay the development. That has always been their position and is why the AR-1 is being funded. But now they need to review their funding levels to determine if it still fits with the "new" events.

Edit added: The statement is full of non-committal items that sound like a PR boilerplate response to the event and its impact for the RD-180 replacement program.
« Last Edit: 06/09/2017 05:37 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #295 on: 06/10/2017 02:37 am »
Correct. Revisiting to assure funding for a "back up".

Looks like Raptor's initial firing was less challenging than BE-4's is turning out to be. I had wondered about FFSC possibly being easier than ORSC, even though its more parts.

ORSC historically has not been easy at scale for new engines, taking years to accomplish. You're dealing with partially combusted, highly reactive, high pressure/volume products, barely containable by the engine's materials.

So while its disappointing it's not an easy engine to finish this stage of its development, it's hardly a surprise either.

On the AF side, this means both AJR/BO. Remember, AJR has to go through exactly the same with AR-1 that BE-4 is going through now, in a year or two. There is nothing to insure that either/any engine will be deterministic at this stage.

Which is why there are back-ups, including potentially a solid LV. Financing/plans about them at this stage is what is being referred to.

IMHO its the most challenging point w/LREs. Next, its on to combustion stability, increasing burn duration, and performance levels/throttling. After that, one begins to understand the engine one designed, as a propulsion system for a vehicle as a reality, warts and all.

For BO and its indefinite money/schedule, the most troublesome would be having to redesign the powerhead or combustion chamber until things WAD. It might just delay NG a bit.

Offline MP99

Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #296 on: 06/10/2017 05:04 pm »
Correct. Revisiting to assure funding for a "back up".

Looks like Raptor's initial firing was less challenging than BE-4's is turning out to be. I had wondered about FFSC possibly being easier than ORSC, even though its more parts.

ORSC historically has not been easy at scale for new engines, taking years to accomplish. You're dealing with partially combusted, highly reactive, high pressure/volume products, barely containable by the engine's materials.


According to this years talks and slides they have tested the BE-4 powerpack to 400klbf. 60+ starts at that level.
No 550klbf level tests, that was part of this campaign.

A couple of questions, if I may, given that I think (?) Raptor tests are also still at subscale?

1) how much difference is there between isolated powerpack testing (at 400 klbf), and a failure of a powerpack during all-up testing at whatever power level they would use during their initial integration testing?

2) I always think of a FFSC engine as being half ORSC, and half FRSC, and therefore think of FFSC as harder than ORSC. Oversimplify, I'm sure.

Of course, given that BE-4 and Raptor are very similar in thrust, the ORSC engine needs to produce more power in its OR leg (the only preburner leg).

Does this mean that FFSC allows lower temperatures and a lot less reactivity *everywhere* in that leg, or perhaps just in all the difficult bits?

Or, maybe avoiding sealing issues separating OR preburner gasses from the fuel leg?

In general, what are the issues that might make the OR leg of FFSC (Raptor) easier than an ORSC engine (BE-4)?

Many thanks for any help.

Cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 06/10/2017 05:05 pm by MP99 »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #297 on: 06/11/2017 05:36 am »
Correct. Revisiting to assure funding for a "back up".

Looks like Raptor's initial firing was less challenging than BE-4's is turning out to be. I had wondered about FFSC possibly being easier than ORSC, even though its more parts.

ORSC historically has not been easy at scale for new engines, taking years to accomplish. You're dealing with partially combusted, highly reactive, high pressure/volume products, barely containable by the engine's materials.


According to this years talks and slides they have tested the BE-4 powerpack to 400klbf. 60+ starts at that level.
No 550klbf level tests, that was part of this campaign.

A couple of questions, if I may, given that I think (?) Raptor tests are also still at subscale?

1) how much difference is there between isolated powerpack testing (at 400 klbf), and a failure of a powerpack during all-up testing at whatever power level they would use during their initial integration testing?
Considerable.

The powerpack supplies the injectors/combustion chamber in a full scale test on stand. Before you would be able to supply the flows necessary, but not function in the system as a combustion process, nor work through start-up sequencing. It's not a matter yet of power level, but a matter of function as a combined system. You want to be able to consistently, stablely work through the start-up sequencing and shutdown with the combustion chamber not experiencing detonations. As the combustion chamber increases in size, this becomes more of a challenge.
 
Quote
2) I always think of a FFSC engine as being half ORSC, and half FRSC, and therefore think of FFSC as harder than ORSC. Oversimplify, I'm sure.
Very.

Keep in mind the mass flows and pressure necessary for the engine's design. The benefit of FFSC is that the sides are at lower pressure/flow than the ORSC's single flow. FFSC is not harder per se as it has more complexity (Raptor's cleverness is in how they keep the complexity down, BE-4's is attempting to limit risk by starting out at a much lower chamber pressure).

Quote
Of course, given that BE-4 and Raptor are very similar in thrust, the ORSC engine needs to produce more power in its OR leg (the only preburner leg).
Nope.

The fired Raptor is a 1MN, while the BE-4 is to be a 2.4MN engine. And you mean flow/pressure of the OR to inject to the combustion chamber to react to get the power, not power on the OR.

Quote
Does this mean that FFSC allows lower temperatures and a lot less reactivity *everywhere* in that leg, or perhaps just in all the difficult bits?
Less pressure/flow on each OR/FR. Sequencing. (I wonder if experience on Merlin face shutoff helped.)

Quote
Or, maybe avoiding sealing issues separating OR preburner gasses from the fuel leg?

Now we're getting into the cost/complexity issues of how to build a single shaft TP design vs a dual TP design. And more. With FFSC you're not able to have those choice, because of the complexity inherent.

And issues with how to handle the highly reactive OR mass flow in the ORSC closed cycle design.

Quote
In general, what are the issues that might make the OR leg of FFSC (Raptor) easier than an ORSC engine (BE-4)?

More compartmentalized. Less flow/pressure (although Raptor is a much higher pressure engine than BE-4). You can sequence startup FR then OR instead of all at once. Transients.

Offline MP99

Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #298 on: 06/11/2017 02:53 pm »
Thanks for a super comprehensive answer.

Much appreciated as always.

Cheers, Martin

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Blue Origin's BE-4 Engine
« Reply #299 on: 06/21/2017 07:53 am »
After 18 charmed months, Blue Origin suffers a setback

All depends on POV.

Quote from: Phillip Swarts
Likewise, Hyten (Gen. John Hyten, the head of U.S. Strategic Command) said he wasn’t pleased with media coverage of Blue Origin’s May accident that destroyed a set of powerpack test hardware for the company’s BE-4 engine.

“Blue Origin just had a failure. Son of a gun. That’s part of learning,” the general said. “It really upsets me when I see headlines come out in the newspaper after the Blue Origin failure the other day: ‘Blue Origin takes huge step back, big failure!’ I’m going,  ‘no, they’re pushing the envelope.’”
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 07:54 am by woods170 »

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0